Post: #1

I don't know how true this is but I thought it was an interesting topic...

P.S. There's sluts in Texas


HPV Vaccine Makes Girls ‘Retarded’

Following up her debate performance, Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann appeared on NBC Tuesday, piling on Texas governor Rick Perry for “the requirement that all innocent little 12-year-old girls or 11-year-old girls in the state of Texas would be forced by the government to take an injection of what could potentially be a very dangerous drug.”

During Monday night’s debate, Bachmann had suggested that Perry mandated HPV vaccines in exchange for a $5,000 campaign donation from drug company Merck.

“I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Fla., after the debate,” the Minnesota Republican explained to NBC’s Matt Lauer Tuesday. “She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter.”

“The mother was crying when she came up to me last night. I didn’t know who she was before the debate. This is the very real concern and people have to draw their own conclusions.”

In fact, The New Zealand HPV Project found that “Gardisal has not been found to cause increased risk of any serious condition.”

Appearing on Fox News Monday night following the debate, Bachmann said that Perry was guilty of “crony capitalism,” a term popularized by Sarah Palin to attack President Barack Obama.

“This is what people hate about politics, when you have someone in the position of power and they have political donors and use their position of power to benefit those political donors,” she told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “The governor’s former chief of staff is chief lobbyist for this big drug company and mandated, again, that every girl would have to have this particular drug.”

Watch this video from NBC’s Today Show, broadcast Sept. 12, 2011.

Post: #2

I was of the understanding that outside of serious brain injuries, mental disabilities were things that happened In Utero.

I think I'm gonna side with Rick Perry on this one, because he's a man and Michelle Bachmann is a woman.

Post: #3

(10-04-2011 10:33 PM)Nonpareil Wrote:  I think I'm gonna side with Rick Perry on this one, because he's a man and Michelle Bachmann is a woman.

Post: #4

Yeah Michele Bachmann is completely full of shit. The HPV vaccine is one of the safest vaccines out there. It's particularly infuriating from a public health perspective when politicians talk out of their ass about shit like this because it has real consequences. People hear Michele Bachmann telling them their kids will be retarded if they get vaccinated, then some of them get scared and don't do it, and then the prevalence of the disease goes way up because vaccines rely on herd immunity to eliminate the pathogen from the population. Every time there's one of these bullshit controversies about HPV, or MMR vaccine causing autism or whatever, it sets the public health agenda back 5 years or so.

It isn't a stretch to say to Michele Bachmann's comments will very likely result in some girls getting cervical cancer who wouldn't have gotten it otherwise.

Post: #5

(10-04-2011 10:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-04-2011 10:33 PM)Nonpareil Wrote:  I think I'm gonna side with Rick Perry on this one, because he's a man and Michelle Bachmann is a woman.

Well if I read the article and do a bit of research...what I'm led to believe is that both of them are running for President next year, and Bachmann is trying to slander Perry with all of this because he took a $5000 contribution that'll maybe pay for one catered luncheon? REALLY?

First of all, Michele Bachmann needs to can it; there will never be a female president of the USA, not because she'd be bad at it (she would be, but that's not the reason), but because women wouldn't vote for a female president. Hilary was the best shot they had and she won, what, 18 states?

Second of all...goddamn, an HPV vaccination isn't a roast that you burned or who Kim Kardashian was caught fucking in a bathroom stall at the Hardrock, so its pretty much out of the area of expertise for 99.9% of women...why is this bitch telling me about it?

Post: #6

(10-04-2011 10:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-04-2011 10:33 PM)Nonpareil Wrote:  I think I'm gonna side with Rick Perry on this one, because he's a man and Michelle Bachmann is a woman.

Quote:It isn't a stretch to say to Michele Bachmann's comments will very likely result in some girls getting cervical cancer who wouldn't have gotten it otherwise.

It's almost guaranteed.

Post: #7

So Bachman herself must have had the vaccine then...

But seriously, she's being extremely irresponsible. We're still trying to recover from the "MMR vaccine causes Autism" hoax. It's understandable that parents and others are concerned for the well being of children, but vaccine opponents are abusing this concern for their own publicity or political reasons - without any credible scientific backing.

Bachman's stand on this should make her inneligable for the position of PTA president, let alone POTUS.

Post: #8

well....lets just use LOGIC for a quick second. There is over 200 different known types of HPV. Out of those 200 types over 22 carry a RISK of developing cancer. Out of the Types that cause cancer the vaccine only "protects" against 2 of them.

90% of people who get HPV naturally eliminate it from their body.

the other %10 are sick people with immune disorders or weakened systems.

The vaccine has NOT been known to protect or cure HPV from women who have taken it.

Drug companies who produce the vaccine DO make a profit from administering it to people who think it actually helps them.

p.s. did you know that vaccines contain mercury which is injected directly into your bloodstream ?

Post: #9

(10-05-2011 10:13 AM)velkrum Wrote:  well....lets just use LOGIC for a quick second. There is over 200 different known types of HPV. Out of those 200 types over 22 carry a RISK of developing cancer. Out of the Types that cause cancer the vaccine only "protects" against 2 of them.

It's actually 4 strains, and those strains are responsible for 90% of cervical cancers.

Quote:90% of people who get HPV naturally eliminate it from their body.

the other %10 are sick people with immune disorders or weakened systems.

Not true. Anyone can be at risk for cervical cancer from a latent HPV infection.

Quote:The vaccine has NOT been known to protect or cure HPV from women who have taken it.

Not true.

Quote:Drug companies who produce the vaccine DO make a profit from administering it to people who think it actually helps them.

Drug companies make a profit when you take antibiotics for an infection too. Does that mean antibiotics don't work?

Quote:p.s. did you know that vaccines contain mercury which is injected directly into your bloodstream ?

That is a very misleading statement. Vaccines are safe and have saved hundreds of millions of lives.

Post: #10

(10-05-2011 11:56 AM)gringochileno Wrote:  It's actually 4 strains, and those strains are responsible for 90% of cervical cancers.

Cervical cancer is one of SEVERAL different cancers that can be caused from SEVERAL (more than 4) different strains.

Quote:Not true. Anyone can be at risk for cervical cancer from a latent HPV infection.
The vaccine has NOT been known to protect or cure HPV from women who have taken it.

In theory, yes, but REALITY is 90% of people who acquire HPV will get rid of it on their own. Care to guess what demographic the remaining 10% fit in ??

Quote:Not true.
Drug companies who produce the vaccine DO make a profit from administering it to people who think it actually helps them.
Drug companies make a profit when you take antibiotics for an infection too.

No one said anything about the effectiveness of OTHER medications, I said pharmacological companies profit from HPV vaccines which have more risk associated with them than benefit.

but I guess your one of those people that believes big drug companies always tell the truth and care about people rather than profits.

Quote:Vaccines are safe and have saved hundreds of millions of lives.

Right......so safe that big pharma companies had to reduce the amount of mercury...just in case.....you do realize mercury in vaccines are BANNED through out the rest of the world but that doesn't matter. CDC say's everything is gonna be alright !

Post: #11

Listening to Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin makes people retarded.

Post: #12

(10-05-2011 12:47 PM)velkrum Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 11:56 AM)gringochileno Wrote:  It's actually 4 strains, and those strains are responsible for 90% of cervical cancers.

Cervical cancer is one of SEVERAL different cancers that can be caused from SEVERAL (more than 4) different strains.

The 4 strains covered by the vaccine account for 90% of cervical cancers. You don't need to cover every strain to have a highly effective vaccine.

Quote:

Quote:Not true. Anyone can be at risk for cervical cancer from a latent HPV infection.
The vaccine has NOT been known to protect or cure HPV from women who have taken it.

In theory, yes, but REALITY is 90% of people who acquire HPV will get rid of it on their own. Care to guess what demographic the remaining 10% fit in ??

Immunocompromised people are a higher-risk group (as is the case for many illnesses), but plenty of people who develop latent infections have no risk factors. 10% may not sound like a lot but with 6 million new HPV infections a year it's quite significant.

Quote:

Quote:Not true.
Drug companies who produce the vaccine DO make a profit from administering it to people who think it actually helps them.
Drug companies make a profit when you take antibiotics for an infection too.

No one said anything about the effectiveness of OTHER medications, I said pharmacological companies profit from HPV vaccines which have more risk associated with them than benefit.

HPV vaccine has far more benefit than risk. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from but they aren't the case.

Quote:but I guess your one of those people that believes big drug companies always tell the truth and care about people rather than profits.

I guess you're one of the people who would rather have a knee-jerk reaction to anything you associate with "big pharma" than actually look at the data.

Quote:

Quote:Vaccines are safe and have saved hundreds of millions of lives.

Right......so safe that big pharma companies had to reduce the amount of mercury...just in case.....you do realize mercury in vaccines are BANNED through out the rest of the world but that doesn't matter. CDC say's everything is gonna be alright !

There's no good evidence of thiomersal in vaccines causing harmful effects. HPV vaccine doesn't even have thiomersal or mercury so I don't know what you're getting at here.

Post: #13

The vaccine does NOT have any effect for women who already have HPV. (just reiterating that point)

4 scenarios and there outcomes explained.

Quote:Based on what we've learned from the FDA's own documents, here are the likely outcomes of each of the four quadrants:

• Quadrant I: Non-Sexually Active, No Gardasil Vaccine
  Outcome: No risk of cervical cancer.
• Quadrant II: Non-Sexually Active, Receives Gardasil Vaccine
  Outcome: No medical benefit from vaccine.
• Quadrant III: Sexually Active, No Gardasil Vaccine
  Outcome: HPV presence is self-limiting and does not lead to cervical cancer.
• Quadrant IV: Sexually Active, Receives Gardasil Vaccine
  Outcome: 44.6% Increased risk of precancerous lesions. No reduction in
  

In other words, Gardasil adds no benefits to any quadrant!

There is no subgroup that actually benefits from a Gardasil vaccination. But there is at least one quadrant in which Gardasil achieves an increased risk of disease. Put another way, Gardasil helps no one, but it harms some.

source: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/...unas01.htm

gringochileno Wrote:Immunocompromised people are a higher-risk group (as is the case for many illnesses), but plenty of people who develop latent infections have no risk factors. 10% may not sound like a lot but with 6 million new HPV infections a year it's quite significant.

If you have HPV and your planning on having sex with AIDS patients, people who have suffered RECENT traumas or blatantly sick women, then yes, THEY run a very high risk of developing cancer from HPV IF they contract it.

Pretty much EVERYONE who has or has had sex will contract or has already contracted HPV or some other STD. Many of you don't realize you already have tons of viruses in your system including HPV.

Some people show symptoms, some don't.

As for thimerosal, I mentioned it as a side note. It is an extremely toxic substance that many people don't realize is in their vaccines. If someone is getting their shots done hopefully after reading my post they will opt out or at least request a mercury free vaccine.

Post: #14

(10-05-2011 04:56 PM)velkrum Wrote:  The vaccine does NOT have any effect for women who already have HPV. If women already have HPV the vaccine is USELESS. (just reiterating that point)

No shit. Do you even know what a vaccine is?

Quote:4 scenarios and there outcomes explained.

[quote]
Based on what we've learned from the FDA's own documents, here are the likely outcomes of each of the four quadrants:

• Quadrant I: Non-Sexually Active, No Gardasil Vaccine
  Outcome: No risk of cervical cancer.
• Quadrant II: Non-Sexually Active, Receives Gardasil Vaccine
  Outcome: No medical benefit from vaccine.
• Quadrant III: Sexually Active, No Gardasil Vaccine
  Outcome: HPV presence is self-limiting and does not lead to cervical cancer.
• Quadrant IV: Sexually Active, Receives Gardasil Vaccine
  Outcome: 44.6% Increased risk of precancerous lesions. No reduction in
  

In other words, Gardasil adds no benefits to any quadrant!

There is no subgroup that actually benefits from a Gardasil vaccination. But there is at least one quadrant in which Gardasil achieves an increased risk of disease. Put another way, Gardasil helps no one, but it harms some.

See now this is just blatant bullshit. Yes, women are at risk of getting cervical cancer if they aren't vaccinated. It is not always self-limiting and you don't need to be immunocompromised to have an infection that progresses to cancer. The statement that people who aren't vaccinated have "no risk of cervical cancer" is just a lie. Here is an actual research article, not a misleading page from an unreliable "natural medicine" website, that shows the vaccine is 90% effective at preventing cervical cancer. This is what the actual "quadrant" breakdown would look like:

Quadrant I: Not sexually active, no vaccine. No increased risk until they become sexually active
Quadrant II: Not sexually active, receives vaccine. Protection from cancer risk even if they become sexually active.
Quadrant III: Sexually active, no vaccine. HPV infection is self-cleared most of the time, but when it isn't there is a significant risk of progression to cancer. 13,000 new cases and 5,000 deaths every year.
Quadrant IV: Sexually active, receives vaccine. Protection from HPV strains responsible for 90% of cancer risk. No increased risk of precancerous lesions because vaccination occurs when girls are 11 or 12 and not yet sexually active.

Quote:

gringochileno Wrote:Immunocompromised people are a higher-risk group (as is the case for many illnesses), but plenty of people who develop latent infections have no risk factors. 10% may not sound like a lot but with 6 million new HPV infections a year it's quite significant.

If you have HPV and your trying to have sex with AIDS patients, people who have suffered RECENT traumas or blatantly sick women, then yes, THEY run a very high risk of developing cancer from HPV IF they contract it.

Pretty much EVERYONE who has or has had sex will contract or has already contracted HPV or some other STD. Many of you don't realize you already have tons of viruses in your system including HPV.

Some people show symptoms, some don't.

You are incorrect. HPV is not always self-limiting and it can lead to cervical cancer even if you have no other risk factors.

Quote:As for thimerosal, I mentioned it as a side note. It is an extremely toxic substance that many people don't realize is in their vaccines. If someone is getting their shots done hopefully after reading my post they will opt out or at least request a mercury free vaccine.

There is no good evidence that thimerosal is harmful at the levels used in vaccine preparations.

Quote:your welcome.

I really, really hope nobody is taking your medical advice because you are causing unnecessary deaths in direct proportion to the number of people who listen to you.

Post: #15

The link you posted: Phase 3 Patricia Study

was funded by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals

They are the corporation who developed Cervarix, their own brand of HPV Vaccine.

http://www.cervarix.com/

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet...4/abstract

but...lets look at another study from the exact same source you got your counter evidence from.

The women with High risk HPV NEVER developed cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2638456/

253 case studies of women who have HPV vs. your big pharma funded DOUBLE BLIND case study done on random people.

Do you still want to continue playing this game ?

Post: #16

Lots of medical research is funded by drug companies. It's the only way to generate enough money to do research. Researchers have to publish their data collection methods and results to avoid bias.

What is the other study supposed to show? It isn't a vaccine trial, it's a prevalence and risk factor study in a population of Jamaican women. It certainly doesn't contradict anything I've said.

Edit: I think I know why you posted the paper but I don't think you understand the significance of the fact that the women in the study with high-risk HPV didn't have cancer.. The women in the study don't have cancer because only people without cancer were selected for the study. The purpose of the research was to identify risk factors for getting infected with the virus and determining the prevalence of different strains of HPV in this population, not to determine the risk of developing cancer in HPV-infected women.

Post: #17

(10-05-2011 11:56 AM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 10:13 AM)velkrum Wrote:  .

Quote:

Quote:The vaccine has NOT been known to protect or cure HPV from women who have taken it.

Not true.

Quote:

Quote:

This is an interesting topic. Question for both of you guys..Are you guys talking specifically about 6, 11, 16, 18? Low grade or high grade? If so, I thought the vaccine only "potentially" prevented genital warts in 90% of the women and 70% cervical cancer in High grade hpv lesions in women. Furthermore, I thought the data was still uncertain when it comes to high grade lesions and how effective the vaccine is at this time, since we would have to know if they were already exposed to it. ( I guess this is what makes the viability so uncertain).
Is age taken into consideration?
Are we talking about women who had already had pre-cancerous cells removed?

Great debate

Post: #18

(10-05-2011 06:38 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 11:56 AM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 10:13 AM)velkrum Wrote:  .

Quote:

Quote:The vaccine has NOT been known to protect or cure HPV from women who have taken it.

Not true.

Quote:

Quote:

This is an interesting topic. Question for both of you guys..Are you guys talking specifically about 6, 11, 16, 18? Low grade or high grade? If so, I thought the vaccine only "potentially" prevented genital warts in 90% of the women and 70% cervical cancer in High grade hpv lesions in women. Furthermore, I thought the data was still uncertain when it comes to high grade lesions and how effective the vaccine is at this time, since we would have to know if they were already exposed to it. ( I guess this is what makes the viability so uncertain).
Is age taken into consideration?
Are we talking about women who had already had pre-cancerous cells removed?

Great debate

Yeah, Gardasil is 6, 11, 16, and 18 which are responsible for 90% of cervical cancer in the US population. I'm not sure what the data is on how good it is at preventing genital warts but I know it's been demonstrated to prevent cancer and precancerous lesions. This paper looks to be fairly recent: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21307652

Unfortunately I don't seem to have access to the full text of that article so I can't tell based on the abstract alone if it addresses some of your more detailed questions. Have you done any literature review?

Post: #19

@ Gringo

You are saying HPV vaccines are good because they have been proven to work.

I am saying HPV vaccines are bad and they are NOT proven to work

You linked to a double blind study by GlaxoSmithKline (the developer of an HPV vaccine) which does NOT conclude that the HPV vaccine prevented HPV (strains 16/18 6/11 to be specific).

I linked to a NON-Biased study that examined people who ALREADY HAD HPV but did not develop cancer.

My point was, the HPV vaccine has NOT been proven to prevent HPV in virgin women.
The vaccine does make things WORSE for women who already have HPV.
The vaccine also makes things WORSE for some women who don't have HPV.

Here is one final analysis that admittedly says, it will take several decades before any CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE can be found that HPV vaccines are efficacious.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20188681

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/b...4222B3.pdf

^^ A PDF download of the outcomes of gardasil experiments. Again proving efficacy is inconclusive. It also killed some of the people participating.

check mate

Post: #20

(10-05-2011 06:50 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 06:38 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 11:56 AM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 10:13 AM)velkrum Wrote:  .

Quote:

Quote:The vaccine has NOT been known to protect or cure HPV from women who have taken it.

Not true.

Quote:

Quote:

This is an interesting topic. Question for both of you guys..Are you guys talking specifically about 6, 11, 16, 18? Low grade or high grade? If so, I thought the vaccine only "potentially" prevented genital warts in 90% of the women and 70% cervical cancer in High grade hpv lesions in women. Furthermore, I thought the data was still uncertain when it comes to high grade lesions and how effective the vaccine is at this time, since we would have to know if they were already exposed to it. ( I guess this is what makes the viability so uncertain).
Is age taken into consideration?
Are we talking about women who had already had pre-cancerous cells removed?

Great debate

Yeah, Gardasil is 6, 11, 16, and 18 which are responsible for 90% of cervical cancer in the US population. I'm not sure what the data is on how good it is at preventing genital warts but I know it's been demonstrated to prevent cancer and precancerous lesions. This paper looks to be fairly recent: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21307652

Unfortunately I don't seem to have access to the full text of that article so I can't tell based on the abstract alone if it addresses some of your more detailed questions. Have you done any literature review?

I've done a bit of reading on it. I got involved in understanding hpv as much as i can when I understood that men can get some serious fucking throat cancer from these whores. I caution all to eat pussy at your own risk. I will try to provide you with some more details but your information seems to be dead on. The main factors causing uncertainty seems to be age, and whether the legions are high grad or low grade. Have you found this to be so?

Post: #21

(10-05-2011 07:07 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  I've done a bit of reading on it. I got involved in understanding hpv as much as i can when I understood that men can get some serious fucking throat cancer from these whores. I caution all to eat pussy at your own risk. I will try to provide you with some more details but your information seems to be dead on. The main factors causing uncertainty seems to be age, and whether the legions are high grad or low grade. Have you found this to be so?

There is nothing you can do to prevent HPV..The entire population of sexually active adults have HPV.

The only thing you can look out for are strange cauliflower growths known as genital warts and not have sex when the lesions are present but even that is not a guaranteed way to prevent infection.

Your best bet is to live your life and not worry about it. HPV is the new genital Herpes scare. News reports of HPV and cancer are fear mongering marketing tactic to sell vaccines.

neither herpes nor HPV should be a concern for healthy individuals.

Yet another reason to stay fit and eat healthy.

Post: #22

(10-05-2011 07:14 PM)velkrum Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 07:07 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  I've done a bit of reading on it. I got involved in understanding hpv as much as i can when I understood that men can get some serious fucking throat cancer from these whores. I caution all to eat pussy at your own risk. I will try to provide you with some more details but your information seems to be dead on. The main factors causing uncertainty seems to be age, and whether the legions are high grad or low grade. Have you found this to be so?

There is nothing you can do to prevent HPV..The entire population of sexually active adults have HPV.

The only thing you can look out for are strange cauliflower growths known as genital warts and not have sex when the lesions are present but even that is not a guaranteed way to prevent infection.

Your best bet is to live your life and not worry about it. HPV is the new genital Herpes scare. News reports of HPV and cancer are fear mongering marketing tactic to sell vaccines.

neither herpes nor HPV should be a concern for healthy individuals.

Yet another reason to stay fit and eat healthy.

whattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt?

Post: #23

With Bill Gates having admitted publicly that vaccines -- that he's funding -- are being used to control the population, I seriously wouldn't want to have anything to do with them.

Post: #24

(10-05-2011 06:59 PM)velkrum Wrote:  @ Gringo

You are saying HPV vaccines are good because they have been proven to work.

I am saying HPV vaccines are bad and they are NOT proven to work

You linked to a double blind study by GlaxoSmithKline (the developer of an HPV vaccine) which does NOT conclude that the HPV vaccine prevented HPV (strains 16/18 6/11 to be specific).

I linked to a NON-Biased study that examined people who ALREADY HAD HPV but did not develop cancer.

My point was, the HPV vaccine has NOT been proven to prevent HPV in virgin women.
The vaccine does make things WORSE for women who already have HPV.
The vaccine also makes things WORSE for some women who don't have HPV.

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote.

Once again: you posted a study in which Jamaican women without cancer were evaluated to see what HPV strains they had. Since some of the women in the study had HPV infections, you claimed that HPV doesn't cause cancer.

Do you not see what's wrong with this picture? Let me make it more obvious: the women in the study who had HPV didn't have cervical cancer because women who had cancer were not eligible for the study. The study wasn't even designed to measure the rate at which HPV causes cancer development, it's a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of different HPV strains in that population. It does not show what you want it to show.

Not everyone with an HPV infection will get cancer. Some of them will. For those who are at risk, screening and vaccination are essential protective tools.

Quote:Here is one final analysis that admittedly says, it will take several decades before and CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE can be found that HPV vaccines are efficacious.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20188681

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/b...4222B3.pdf

^^ A PDF download of the outcomes of gardasil experiments. Again proving efficacy is inconclusive. It also killed some of the people participating.

check mate

You either have not read your own documents or you do not understand them. The first paper is a post-licensure follow-up study. They're routine and are used to assess the effect the vaccine is having in the community and see if immunity is waning at all over the long term. It doesn't mean the vaccine hasn't been shown to be safe and effective.

The second paper doesn't support your argument at all, in fact it proves the opposite. The clinical trial results all demonstrate a high level of efficacy except when the patients had evidence of a prior persistent HPV infection (pages 11-13). It also shows the vaccine to be safe with no more adverse events than placebo (page 21).

Stop making false assertions. HPV vaccine is safe and effective and there's no reason why people shouldn't be vaccinated. It's a good thing you're a random poster on an internet forum and not a prominent politician, or you'd likely responsible for considerable loss of life.

Post: #25

I'm getting tired of your ignorance gringo. The information is here for everyone to see and they can make up their own minds.